I hereby announce that I am running for President of Debate.org.If I win:

1. This will become a pay-to-use Site, with a payment of 50 dollars a month required to keep your account from being closed. The money will, of course, be used to help the ghost of Fred Phelps run for US President in real life.

2. Derailing debates will be not only tolerated but required of anyone who's been a member for over a month. They'll have to derail a debate twice a month or risk having their accounts closed.

3. Anybody who wants to ban anybody else can make a petition in the forums about it. If the petition gains one vote, the person you want permabanned will be permabanned. Such a petition can be formed against anyone but the President.

4. I will form a committee people to spam the poll section regularly with racist, sexist, and homophobic polls.

5. The Serb, Izbo, RationalMadman, and Askbob will be unbanned and I will have somebody send these users letters telling them that they can come back and act however they please.

6. I will form a committee to send threatening letters to any rational debater.

7. I will encourage salesmen to create even more advertisement forums on the Site.

8. I will make Jifpop and STALIN moderators on this Site.

DDO, we are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the generation to bring about change. And change we need...indeed.A vote against me is a vote for Hitler!

1. This will become a pay-to-use Site, with a payment of 50 dollars a month required to keep your account from being closed. The money will, of course, be used to help the ghost of Fred Phelps run for US President in real life.

Is it just me, or does that sound a heck of a lot like a tax increase? I thought you were conservative!

Sure, you could say, "DDO is a private site, and thus they have the right to charge a member fee." It's certainly a plausible theory -- though I'll defer to tbh/cuber on whether it's "justified" -- but I still find it ironic that a conservative would support de facto redistribution.

2. Derailing debates will be not only tolerated but required of anyone who's been a member for over a month. They'll have to derail a debate twice a month or risk having their accounts closed.

That sounds like centralized coercion.

3. Anybody who wants to ban anybody else can make a petition in the forums about it. If the petition gains one vote, the person you want permabanned will be permabanned. Such a petition can be formed against anyone but the President.

I could actually get behind the notion of some sort of a petition or public process (though we already have the trial system), but using a petition as a form of moderation just seems silly and overzealous. If anything, it could serve as a hand or a heads-up to moderators to the effect of "check this person out."

4. I will form a committee people to spam the poll section regularly with racist, sexist, and homophobic polls.

Ok, now I'm starting to feel silly about taking this platform seriously. Granted, I had the same feeling earlier but wanted to actually continue on. But I trust that even you, as trollish as this post is, wouldn't advocate something like that.

5. The Serb, Izbo, RationalMadman, and Askbob will be unbanned and I will have somebody send these users letters telling them that they can come back and act however they please.

I thought RM said, in his rap video to airmax, that he wasn't planning to ever come back?

6. I will form a committee to send threatening letters to any rational debater.

Umm..

7. I will encourage salesmen to create even more advertisement forums on the Site.

Is that even possible?

8. I will make Jifpop and STALIN moderators on this Site.

lol.

DDO, we are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the generation to bring about change. And change we need...indeed.A vote against me is a vote for Hitler!

1. This will become a pay-to-use Site, with a payment of 50 dollars a month required to keep your account from being closed. The money will, of course, be used to help the ghost of Fred Phelps run for US President in real life.

Is it just me, or does that sound a heck of a lot like a tax increase? I thought you were conservative!

Sure, you could say, "DDO is a private site, and thus they have the right to charge a member fee." It's certainly a plausible theory -- though I'll defer to tbh/cuber on whether it's "justified" -- but I still find it ironic that a conservative would support de facto redistribution.

2. Derailing debates will be not only tolerated but required of anyone who's been a member for over a month. They'll have to derail a debate twice a month or risk having their accounts closed.

That sounds like centralized coercion.

3. Anybody who wants to ban anybody else can make a petition in the forums about it. If the petition gains one vote, the person you want permabanned will be permabanned. Such a petition can be formed against anyone but the President.

I could actually get behind the notion of some sort of a petition or public process (though we already have the trial system), but using a petition as a form of moderation just seems silly and overzealous. If anything, it could serve as a hand or a heads-up to moderators to the effect of "check this person out."

4. I will form a committee people to spam the poll section regularly with racist, sexist, and homophobic polls.

Ok, now I'm starting to feel silly about taking this platform seriously. Granted, I had the same feeling earlier but wanted to actually continue on. But I trust that even you, as trollish as this post is, wouldn't advocate something like that.

5. The Serb, Izbo, RationalMadman, and Askbob will be unbanned and I will have somebody send these users letters telling them that they can come back and act however they please.

I thought RM said, in his rap video to airmax, that he wasn't planning to ever come back?

Prog, you believe that?

6. I will form a committee to send threatening letters to any rational debater.

Umm..

7. I will encourage salesmen to create even more advertisement forums on the Site.

Is that even possible?

8. I will make Jifpop and STALIN moderators on this Site.

lol.

DDO, we are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the generation to bring about change. And change we need...indeed.A vote against me is a vote for Hitler!

Well, shucks, I guess I'll have to vote for you now. /sarcasm

Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.
Deep down, we're all dumbassses who act like shittheads

I honestly can't say whether or not he'll come back. I don't know the guy, so I suppose I'm inclined to believe that, after making a rage video attacking the site's mod, he wouldn't have much of an interest in coming back.

Here's the argument, I guess (yes, I have too much time on my hands):

P1: If you effectively break every rule in the TOS such that you'll be instantly banned, you won't be welcomed back on the site.P2: RM broke every rule in the TOS.C1: RM won't be welcomed back on the site.P3: If RM won't be welcomed back on the site, he is has no reason to return.C2: RM has no reason to return.P4: If RM has no reason to return, he won't return.C3: RM won't return.

I'll admit that I don't know much about formal logic -- though it's my summer project to read about it extensively -- but I think that argument is at least modestly sound!

I honestly can't say whether or not he'll come back. I don't know the guy, so I suppose I'm inclined to believe that, after making a rage video attacking the site's mod, he wouldn't have much of an interest in coming back.

Here's the argument, I guess (yes, I have too much time on my hands):

P1: If you effectively break every rule in the TOS such that you'll be instantly banned, you won't be welcomed back on the site.P2: RM broke every rule in the TOS.

He did that a looong time ago... And he still came back.

C1: RM won't be welcomed back on the site.P3: If RM won't be welcomed back on the site,

He came back before... As Baus and many others

he is has no reason to return.C2: RM has no reason to return.

That didn't stop him this time

P4: If RM has no reason to return, he won't return.C3: RM won't return.

I'll admit that I don't know much about formal logic -- though it's my summer project to read about it extensively -- but I think that argument is at least modestly sound!

Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.
Deep down, we're all dumbassses who act like shittheads

I honestly can't say whether or not he'll come back. I don't know the guy, so I suppose I'm inclined to believe that, after making a rage video attacking the site's mod, he wouldn't have much of an interest in coming back.

Here's the argument, I guess (yes, I have too much time on my hands):

P1: If you effectively break every rule in the TOS such that you'll be instantly banned, you won't be welcomed back on the site.

Proof?

P2: RM broke every rule in the TOS.

Lol did he actually?

C1: RM won't be welcomed back on the site.P3: If RM won't be welcomed back on the site, he is has no reason to return.

This is another premise I disagree with. He may just want to troll others, there's more than one reason someone may want to return.

C2: RM has no reason to return.P4: If RM has no reason to return, he won't return.C3: RM won't return.

I'll admit that I don't know much about formal logic -- though it's my summer project to read about it extensively -- but I think that argument is at least modestly sound!

1. This will become a pay-to-use Site, with a payment of 50 dollars a month required to keep your account from being closed. The money will, of course, be used to help the ghost of Fred Phelps run for US President in real life.

Is it just me, or does that sound a heck of a lot like a tax increase? I thought you were conservative!

Sure, you could say, "DDO is a private site, and thus they have the right to charge a member fee." It's certainly a plausible theory -- though I'll defer to tbh/cuber on whether it's "justified" -- but I still find it ironic that a conservative would support de facto redistribution.

2. Derailing debates will be not only tolerated but required of anyone who's been a member for over a month. They'll have to derail a debate twice a month or risk having their accounts closed.

That sounds like centralized coercion.

3. Anybody who wants to ban anybody else can make a petition in the forums about it. If the petition gains one vote, the person you want permabanned will be permabanned. Such a petition can be formed against anyone but the President.

I could actually get behind the notion of some sort of a petition or public process (though we already have the trial system), but using a petition as a form of moderation just seems silly and overzealous. If anything, it could serve as a hand or a heads-up to moderators to the effect of "check this person out."

4. I will form a committee people to spam the poll section regularly with racist, sexist, and homophobic polls.

Ok, now I'm starting to feel silly about taking this platform seriously. Granted, I had the same feeling earlier but wanted to actually continue on. But I trust that even you, as trollish as this post is, wouldn't advocate something like that.

5. The Serb, Izbo, RationalMadman, and Askbob will be unbanned and I will have somebody send these users letters telling them that they can come back and act however they please.

I thought RM said, in his rap video to airmax, that he wasn't planning to ever come back?

6. I will form a committee to send threatening letters to any rational debater.

Umm..

7. I will encourage salesmen to create even more advertisement forums on the Site.

Is that even possible?

8. I will make Jifpop and STALIN moderators on this Site.

lol.

DDO, we are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the generation to bring about change. And change we need...indeed.A vote against me is a vote for Hitler!

I honestly can't say whether or not he'll come back. I don't know the guy, so I suppose I'm inclined to believe that, after making a rage video attacking the site's mod, he wouldn't have much of an interest in coming back.

Here's the argument, I guess (yes, I have too much time on my hands):

P1: If you effectively break every rule in the TOS such that you'll be instantly banned, you won't be welcomed back on the site.P2: RM broke every rule in the TOS.

He did that a looong time ago... And he still came back.

But was it to the same degree of intensity? That is, did he make a YouTube video attacking airmax?

C1: RM won't be welcomed back on the site.P3: If RM won't be welcomed back on the site,

He came back before... As Baus and many others

Yes, but again, was his banning as much of a deal as it was this time?

he is has no reason to return.C2: RM has no reason to return.

That didn't stop him this time

I suppose trolling is a possible motive, though I can't imagine that anyone would take him seriously, even as a troll.

P4: If RM has no reason to return, he won't return.C3: RM won't return.

I'll admit that I don't know much about formal logic -- though it's my summer project to read about it extensively -- but I think that argument is at least modestly sound!

I honestly can't say whether or not he'll come back. I don't know the guy, so I suppose I'm inclined to believe that, after making a rage video attacking the site's mod, he wouldn't have much of an interest in coming back.

Here's the argument, I guess (yes, I have too much time on my hands):

P1: If you effectively break every rule in the TOS such that you'll be instantly banned, you won't be welcomed back on the site.P2: RM broke every rule in the TOS.

He did that a looong time ago... And he still came back.

But was it to the same degree of intensity? That is, did he make a YouTube video attacking airmax?

Did you not see all the others he made? "I don't hate Bench. I just want to kill him"

C1: RM won't be welcomed back on the site.P3: If RM won't be welcomed back on the site,

He came back before... As Baus and many others

Yes, but again, was his banning as much of a deal as it was this time?

*shrugs* I guess we'll see.

he is has no reason to return.C2: RM has no reason to return.

That didn't stop him this time

I suppose trolling is a possible motive, though I can't imagine that anyone would take him seriously, even as a troll.

He was a good debater as Baus though...

P4: If RM has no reason to return, he won't return.C3: RM won't return.

I'll admit that I don't know much about formal logic -- though it's my summer project to read about it extensively -- but I think that argument is at least modestly sound!

Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.
Deep down, we're all dumbassses who act like shittheads

I honestly can't say whether or not he'll come back. I don't know the guy, so I suppose I'm inclined to believe that, after making a rage video attacking the site's mod, he wouldn't have much of an interest in coming back.

Here's the argument, I guess (yes, I have too much time on my hands):

P1: If you effectively break every rule in the TOS such that you'll be instantly banned, you won't be welcomed back on the site.

Proof?

The proof is in the pudding lol. The premise is defined so narrowly that, if I were to define what it means to be welcomed back on the site, that could simply boil down to whether or not someone will be banned upon joining.

But the proof I suppose is more anecdotal: the threads on RM, the people he's harassed, etc .

P2: RM broke every rule in the TOS.

Lol did he actually?

From what I've heard, yeah haha.

C1: RM won't be welcomed back on the site.P3: If RM won't be welcomed back on the site, he is has no reason to return.

This is another premise I disagree with. He may just want to troll others, there's more than one reason someone may want to return.

This is quite plausible, and I suppose it's egocentric of me to argue this point. If I were in his place, I wouldn't see much of a reason to troll because trolling is usually done for entertainment, but entertainment is contingent on people taking you seriously. Then again, maybe he had a "unique" conception of entertainment..

C2: RM has no reason to return.P4: If RM has no reason to return, he won't return.C3: RM won't return.

I'll admit that I don't know much about formal logic -- though it's my summer project to read about it extensively -- but I think that argument is at least modestly sound!

I honestly can't say whether or not he'll come back. I don't know the guy, so I suppose I'm inclined to believe that, after making a rage video attacking the site's mod, he wouldn't have much of an interest in coming back.

Here's the argument, I guess (yes, I have too much time on my hands):

P1: If you effectively break every rule in the TOS such that you'll be instantly banned, you won't be welcomed back on the site.P2: RM broke every rule in the TOS.

He did that a looong time ago... And he still came back.

But was it to the same degree of intensity? That is, did he make a YouTube video attacking airmax?

Did you not see all the others he made? "I don't hate Bench. I just want to kill him"

I didn't see them, but I heard about them.

But bench isn't Max. Bench has no power over the site at all, even though he was a very popular member. Don't you think there's a difference there?

C1: RM won't be welcomed back on the site.P3: If RM won't be welcomed back on the site,

He came back before... As Baus and many others

Yes, but again, was his banning as much of a deal as it was this time?

*shrugs* I guess we'll see.

he is has no reason to return.C2: RM has no reason to return.

That didn't stop him this time

I suppose trolling is a possible motive, though I can't imagine that anyone would take him seriously, even as a troll.

He was a good debater as Baus though...

I agree.

P4: If RM has no reason to return, he won't return.C3: RM won't return.

I'll admit that I don't know much about formal logic -- though it's my summer project to read about it extensively -- but I think that argument is at least modestly sound!

1. This will become a pay-to-use Site, with a payment of 50 dollars a month required to keep your account from being closed. The money will, of course, be used to help the ghost of Fred Phelps run for US President in real life.

Is it just me, or does that sound a heck of a lot like a tax increase? I thought you were conservative!

Sure, you could say, "DDO is a private site, and thus they have the right to charge a member fee." It's certainly a plausible theory -- though I'll defer to tbh/cuber on whether it's "justified" -- but I still find it ironic that a conservative would support de facto redistribution.

2. Derailing debates will be not only tolerated but required of anyone who's been a member for over a month. They'll have to derail a debate twice a month or risk having their accounts closed.

That sounds like centralized coercion.

3. Anybody who wants to ban anybody else can make a petition in the forums about it. If the petition gains one vote, the person you want permabanned will be permabanned. Such a petition can be formed against anyone but the President.

I could actually get behind the notion of some sort of a petition or public process (though we already have the trial system), but using a petition as a form of moderation just seems silly and overzealous. If anything, it could serve as a hand or a heads-up to moderators to the effect of "check this person out."

4. I will form a committee people to spam the poll section regularly with racist, sexist, and homophobic polls.

Ok, now I'm starting to feel silly about taking this platform seriously. Granted, I had the same feeling earlier but wanted to actually continue on. But I trust that even you, as trollish as this post is, wouldn't advocate something like that.

5. The Serb, Izbo, RationalMadman, and Askbob will be unbanned and I will have somebody send these users letters telling them that they can come back and act however they please.

I thought RM said, in his rap video to airmax, that he wasn't planning to ever come back?

6. I will form a committee to send threatening letters to any rational debater.

Umm..

7. I will encourage salesmen to create even more advertisement forums on the Site.

Is that even possible?

8. I will make Jifpop and STALIN moderators on this Site.

lol.

DDO, we are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the generation to bring about change. And change we need...indeed.A vote against me is a vote for Hitler!

I honestly can't say whether or not he'll come back. I don't know the guy, so I suppose I'm inclined to believe that, after making a rage video attacking the site's mod, he wouldn't have much of an interest in coming back.

Here's the argument, I guess (yes, I have too much time on my hands):

P1: If you effectively break every rule in the TOS such that you'll be instantly banned, you won't be welcomed back on the site.P2: RM broke every rule in the TOS.

He did that a looong time ago... And he still came back.

But was it to the same degree of intensity? That is, did he make a YouTube video attacking airmax?

Did you not see all the others he made? "I don't hate Bench. I just want to kill him"

I didn't see them, but I heard about them.

But bench isn't Max. Bench has no power over the site at all, even though he was a very popular member. Don't you think there's a difference there?

And? Bench is a human being and was a member! Max is a human being and a member! He may have made a video attacking airmax but he made a deaththreat to Bench.

Max can live with the insults and just brush them off. However, a death threat is MUCH MUCh more different.

C1: RM won't be welcomed back on the site.P3: If RM won't be welcomed back on the site,

He came back before... As Baus and many others

Yes, but again, was his banning as much of a deal as it was this time?

*shrugs* I guess we'll see.

he is has no reason to return.C2: RM has no reason to return.

That didn't stop him this time

I suppose trolling is a possible motive, though I can't imagine that anyone would take him seriously, even as a troll.

He was a good debater as Baus though...

I agree.

P4: If RM has no reason to return, he won't return.C3: RM won't return.

I'll admit that I don't know much about formal logic -- though it's my summer project to read about it extensively -- but I think that argument is at least modestly sound!

Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.
Deep down, we're all dumbassses who act like shittheads

I honestly can't say whether or not he'll come back. I don't know the guy, so I suppose I'm inclined to believe that, after making a rage video attacking the site's mod, he wouldn't have much of an interest in coming back.

Here's the argument, I guess (yes, I have too much time on my hands):

P1: If you effectively break every rule in the TOS such that you'll be instantly banned, you won't be welcomed back on the site.P2: RM broke every rule in the TOS.

He did that a looong time ago... And he still came back.

But was it to the same degree of intensity? That is, did he make a YouTube video attacking airmax?

Did you not see all the others he made? "I don't hate Bench. I just want to kill him"

I didn't see them, but I heard about them.

But bench isn't Max. Bench has no power over the site at all, even though he was a very popular member. Don't you think there's a difference there?

And? Bench is a human being and was a member! Max is a human being and a member! He may have made a video attacking airmax but he made a deaththreat to Bench.

Max can live with the insults and just brush them off. However, a death threat is MUCH MUCh more different.

I think the first argument is an appeal to egalitarianism. You and I believe that, but I'm not sure if RM is on the same page.

Also, didn't Max say that RM also threatened his life?

C1: RM won't be welcomed back on the site.P3: If RM won't be welcomed back on the site,

He came back before... As Baus and many others

Yes, but again, was his banning as much of a deal as it was this time?

*shrugs* I guess we'll see.

he is has no reason to return.C2: RM has no reason to return.

That didn't stop him this time

I suppose trolling is a possible motive, though I can't imagine that anyone would take him seriously, even as a troll.

He was a good debater as Baus though...

I agree.

P4: If RM has no reason to return, he won't return.C3: RM won't return.

I'll admit that I don't know much about formal logic -- though it's my summer project to read about it extensively -- but I think that argument is at least modestly sound!

I honestly can't say whether or not he'll come back. I don't know the guy, so I suppose I'm inclined to believe that, after making a rage video attacking the site's mod, he wouldn't have much of an interest in coming back.

Here's the argument, I guess (yes, I have too much time on my hands):

P1: If you effectively break every rule in the TOS such that you'll be instantly banned, you won't be welcomed back on the site.P2: RM broke every rule in the TOS.

He did that a looong time ago... And he still came back.

But was it to the same degree of intensity? That is, did he make a YouTube video attacking airmax?

Did you not see all the others he made? "I don't hate Bench. I just want to kill him"

I didn't see them, but I heard about them.

But bench isn't Max. Bench has no power over the site at all, even though he was a very popular member. Don't you think there's a difference there?

And? Bench is a human being and was a member! Max is a human being and a member! He may have made a video attacking airmax but he made a deaththreat to Bench.

Max can live with the insults and just brush them off. However, a death threat is MUCH MUCh more different.

I think the first argument is an appeal to egalitarianism. You and I believe that, but I'm not sure if RM is on the same page.

... In that case, we have one more moderator for him to attack... And then the President.

Also, didn't Max say that RM also threatened his life?

Really? Where? 0.0

C1: RM won't be welcomed back on the site.P3: If RM won't be welcomed back on the site,

He came back before... As Baus and many others

Yes, but again, was his banning as much of a deal as it was this time?

*shrugs* I guess we'll see.

he is has no reason to return.C2: RM has no reason to return.

That didn't stop him this time

I suppose trolling is a possible motive, though I can't imagine that anyone would take him seriously, even as a troll.

He was a good debater as Baus though...

I agree.

P4: If RM has no reason to return, he won't return.C3: RM won't return.

I'll admit that I don't know much about formal logic -- though it's my summer project to read about it extensively -- but I think that argument is at least modestly sound!

Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.
Deep down, we're all dumbassses who act like shittheads

I honestly can't say whether or not he'll come back. I don't know the guy, so I suppose I'm inclined to believe that, after making a rage video attacking the site's mod, he wouldn't have much of an interest in coming back.

Here's the argument, I guess (yes, I have too much time on my hands):

P1: If you effectively break every rule in the TOS such that you'll be instantly banned, you won't be welcomed back on the site.P2: RM broke every rule in the TOS.

He did that a looong time ago... And he still came back.

But was it to the same degree of intensity? That is, did he make a YouTube video attacking airmax?

Did you not see all the others he made? "I don't hate Bench. I just want to kill him"

I didn't see them, but I heard about them.

But bench isn't Max. Bench has no power over the site at all, even though he was a very popular member. Don't you think there's a difference there?

And? Bench is a human being and was a member! Max is a human being and a member! He may have made a video attacking airmax but he made a deaththreat to Bench.

Max can live with the insults and just brush them off. However, a death threat is MUCH MUCh more different.

I think the first argument is an appeal to egalitarianism. You and I believe that, but I'm not sure if RM is on the same page.

... In that case, we have one more moderator for him to attack... And then the President.

True, maybe he did.

Also, didn't Max say that RM also threatened his life?

Really? Where? 0.0

I think it was over google+.

C1: RM won't be welcomed back on the site.P3: If RM won't be welcomed back on the site,

He came back before... As Baus and many others

Yes, but again, was his banning as much of a deal as it was this time?

*shrugs* I guess we'll see.

he is has no reason to return.C2: RM has no reason to return.

That didn't stop him this time

I suppose trolling is a possible motive, though I can't imagine that anyone would take him seriously, even as a troll.

He was a good debater as Baus though...

I agree.

P4: If RM has no reason to return, he won't return.C3: RM won't return.

I'll admit that I don't know much about formal logic -- though it's my summer project to read about it extensively -- but I think that argument is at least modestly sound!

I honestly can't say whether or not he'll come back. I don't know the guy, so I suppose I'm inclined to believe that, after making a rage video attacking the site's mod, he wouldn't have much of an interest in coming back.

Here's the argument, I guess (yes, I have too much time on my hands):

P1: If you effectively break every rule in the TOS such that you'll be instantly banned, you won't be welcomed back on the site.P2: RM broke every rule in the TOS.

He did that a looong time ago... And he still came back.

But was it to the same degree of intensity? That is, did he make a YouTube video attacking airmax?

Did you not see all the others he made? "I don't hate Bench. I just want to kill him"

I didn't see them, but I heard about them.

But bench isn't Max. Bench has no power over the site at all, even though he was a very popular member. Don't you think there's a difference there?

And? Bench is a human being and was a member! Max is a human being and a member! He may have made a video attacking airmax but he made a deaththreat to Bench.

Max can live with the insults and just brush them off. However, a death threat is MUCH MUCh more different.

I think the first argument is an appeal to egalitarianism. You and I believe that, but I'm not sure if RM is on the same page.

... In that case, we have one more moderator for him to attack... And then the President.

True, maybe he did.

Also, didn't Max say that RM also threatened his life?

Really? Where? 0.0

I think it was over google+.

C1: RM won't be welcomed back on the site.P3: If RM won't be welcomed back on the site,

He came back before... As Baus and many others

Yes, but again, was his banning as much of a deal as it was this time?

*shrugs* I guess we'll see.

he is has no reason to return.C2: RM has no reason to return.

That didn't stop him this time

I suppose trolling is a possible motive, though I can't imagine that anyone would take him seriously, even as a troll.

He was a good debater as Baus though...

I agree.

P4: If RM has no reason to return, he won't return.C3: RM won't return.

I'll admit that I don't know much about formal logic -- though it's my summer project to read about it extensively -- but I think that argument is at least modestly sound!

Oh ok

Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.
Deep down, we're all dumbassses who act like shittheads

I honestly can't say whether or not he'll come back. I don't know the guy, so I suppose I'm inclined to believe that, after making a rage video attacking the site's mod, he wouldn't have much of an interest in coming back.

Here's the argument, I guess (yes, I have too much time on my hands):

P1: If you effectively break every rule in the TOS such that you'll be instantly banned, you won't be welcomed back on the site.

Proof?

The proof is in the pudding lol. The premise is defined so narrowly that, if I were to define what it means to be welcomed back on the site, that could simply boil down to whether or not someone will be banned upon joining.

But the proof I suppose is more anecdotal: the threads on RM, the people he's harassed, etc .

Meh.

P2: RM broke every rule in the TOS.

Lol did he actually?

From what I've heard, yeah haha.

That's great lol.

C1: RM won't be welcomed back on the site.P3: If RM won't be welcomed back on the site, he is has no reason to return.

This is another premise I disagree with. He may just want to troll others, there's more than one reason someone may want to return.

This is quite plausible, and I suppose it's egocentric of me to argue this point. If I were in his place, I wouldn't see much of a reason to troll because trolling is usually done for entertainment, but entertainment is contingent on people taking you seriously. Then again, maybe he had a "unique" conception of entertainment..

Trolling isn't the only thing he can do on DDO... There's more things to the website than just being welcomed back.

C2: RM has no reason to return.P4: If RM has no reason to return, he won't return.C3: RM won't return.

I'll admit that I don't know much about formal logic -- though it's my summer project to read about it extensively -- but I think that argument is at least modestly sound!